Brail! 


tU  I  ! 


[{hjifniUji 


BHiHaM 


1  u'-Br 

Him 


no  ubsii 


)|ii 


M  m 


8» 


Mttm 


MMSniiSlUl 'irifrr! 
KiiRKii!  !a  y  •  wit 


ra  $ Wpliwiwiip iPfwPtl 

III iiiiiliiSi 

mmmam 

{jlSW j(8 1  jj ' * fHiW  m  ~ [M  li i! i HmiraK jl I ••  ' 

llSlwIwH 


liU 

son 


mi  ■ 


iiil 


liiiiii* 


W'sfiiiK 
i’i  iri  liliii 


iJ'i'Jfl 


'(ijiljj 


I  hlitiillilii 


iiiii  Ri 


filial! 


!  !•:  !  'l| 


HiiiJHIF 


i  iBiiaii  iii 


innu UUU  ?*R  Jtr 
luutrj  )J||  film;:; 


,)!•  WUl'i  II  JMM  nsyu 

I  till!  tlifpm  ill 


■ 


Slii 

•  1  .  1 


Itllll 


■Hlnitiw 


B  iilrtPnHf  IPPP  '"iP 

■■mm 


jgf  $E 


:a;i 


J 


ill 


MlrHi! 


i  ililiS! 


mm 


■  ’  | 


fjlfftf  fii Iiil: 

uimm 


:  jjlinii 


iijiilllH 


llliiii 


alijlilii! 


Omoffi 


piijijjif 


JilliiliiilBSIIW 


iWlftH 


iii 


Sfi  $  OT  feliiiliffilfi!  HI® 


Kfit 


; 

[Ml! 


TClt*  P  flt  * 

mmm 


:i;r  f  jj 


w 


If  VWiRViHWiRPIPMffiSi 


: 


■•HtUW 


lira 


MW! 


H 


iiikii 


iilli 


WilnfPi 

if 


:*■'  "I 


II  M  l 


.r  i 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/presbyterianchur00pres_68 


PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America, 


against 


The  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 


Extracts  from  the  Proceedings,  of 
November  29TH,  1S92. 


Objections  presented  by  Mr.  mccook 

TO  THE  MOTION  TO  STRIKE  OUT 
CHARGES  IV.  AND  VII.  FROM  THE  AMENDED 
CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIONS. 


A  motion  having  been  made  and  seconded  to  strike  from  the 
Amended  Charges  and  Specifications,  as  served  upon  Professor 
Briggs,  Charges  IV.  and  VII.,  the  Committee  of  Prosecution 
was  heard  through  Mr.  McCook. 

Amended  Charges  IV.  and  VII.  are  as  follows: 

Charge  IV. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being  a  Minister  in 
said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with 
teaching  that  many  of  the  Old  Testament  predictions  have  been 
reversed  by  history,  and  that  the  great  body  of  Messianic  pre¬ 
diction  has  not  been  and  cannot  be  fulfilled,  which  is  contrary 
to  the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards 
of  the  said  Church,  that  God  is  true,  omniscient  and  unchange¬ 
able. 


Charge  VII. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being  a  Minister  of 
said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with 
teaching  that  the  processes  of  redemption  extend  to  the  world  to 
come  in  the  case  of  many  who  die  in  sin ;  which  is  contrary  to 
the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards  of  the 
said  Church,  that  the  processes  of  redemption  are  limited  to  this 
world. 

Mr.  McCook  spoke  as  follows: 

In  filing  objections  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  amended  charges 
and  specifications,  in  form  or  in  legal  effect,  Professor  Briggs, 
while  not  waiving  any  of  his  rights  in  the  premises,  expressed 
his  willingness  to  go  to  trial  upon  the  amended  charges  sub¬ 
mitted  by  the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  with  the  exception  of 
Charges  IV.  and  VII.  The  Committee  asked  to  take  the  time 


4 


between  the  sessions  of  the  Judicatory,  to  carefully  examine 
what  Professor  Briggs  had  said,  with  reference  to  Charges  IV. 
and  VII.,  so  that  if  the  Committee,  with  the  most  careful  and 
conscientious  desire  to  save  the  time  of  the  Presbytery,  and  to 
conserve  the  truth,  and  while  not  making  any  commitment  so 
to  do,  would  be  glad  to  remove  the  charges  objected  to,  if  in  the 
interest  of  orderly  procedure  and  justice  to  the  truth  it  could 

be  done. 

It  is  important  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  when  the  Judi¬ 
catory  is  considering  preliminary  objections  only,  that  we  should 
have  a  clear  view  as  to  the  object  of  the  orderly  presentation, 
under  the  terms  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  of  charges  and  speci¬ 
fications. 

It  cannot  be  claimed  by  any  one,  that  charges  and  specifica¬ 
tions  which,  under  the  provisions  of  Sections  15  and  16  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  ought  to  be  as  brief  and  concise  as  possible, 
should,  upon  their  face  or  mere  statement,  furnish  ground  for 
the  conviction  of  the  accused. 

The  intention  of  the  Book  clearly  is,  that  such  charges  and 
specifications  should  be  sufficient  to  put  the  accused  on  his  de¬ 
fense.  Under  these  circumstances  the  duty  of  the  Committee 
of  Prosecution  has  been  fully  performed,  when  by  the  submis¬ 
sion  of  charges  and  specifications  drawn  in  strict  compliance  with 
the  provisions  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  they  have  presented 
grounds  for  a  case,  indicating  an  offense,  sufficient  to  put  the 
accused  upon  his  defense. 

At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings  the  Judicatory  can,  with  pro¬ 
priety,  give  consideration  to  two  points  only: 

First. — Are  the  charges  and  specifications  in  the  form  re¬ 
quired  by  the  Book?  To  this  but  one  answer  can  be  given,  they 
have  been  drawn,  and  are  now  presented  in  strict  compliance,  as 
to  form,  with  the  provisions  of  the  Book. 

Second.— As  to  the  legal  effect  of  the  charges  and  specifica¬ 
tions.  This,  as  a  preliminary  question,  does  not  call  for  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution  to  present  charges,-  which  by  their 
mere  statement,  apart  from  the  proof  and  the  arguments  which 
they  propose  to  submit,  would  secure  a  conviction. 


5 


The  words  “  legal  effect,”  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  can 
only  mean,  that  if  the  charges  and  specifications,  as  submitted 
in  due  form,  make  out  a  prima  facie  case,  which  can  probably 
be  sustained  by  the  proofs  and  arguments  as  showing  that  the 
accused  is  chargeable  with  an  offense,  that  is  all  that  the  Book 
requires. 

In  other  words,  a  prima  facie  case  must  be  made  out  against 
the  accused  in  due  form,  and  the  charges  and  specifications 
must  be  such,  if  sustained,  to  show  that  the  accused  has  been 
guilty  of  an  offense  within  the  meaning  of  Sections  3  and  4  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline. 

The  sustaining  of  the  charges  as  to  form  and  legal  effect,  of 
course,  does  not  in  any  way  commit  the  Judicatory  or  make  the 
accused  subject  to  discipline,  as  this  can  only  follow  after  full 
trial  upon  the  merits. 

CHARGE  VII. 

In  the  objections  filed  yesterday  to  the  Seventh  of  the  Amended 
Charges,  Professor  Briggs  says:  “The  prosecution  impute  this 
doctrine  to  me,  notwithstanding  the  disclaimer  of  such  teaching 
which  has  been  submitted  to  the  Presbytery  on  two  different 
occasions.” 

Under  Charge  VII.,  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  charges 
and  offers  to  prove,  that  Professor  Briggs  has  taught  “that  the 
processes  of  redemption  extend  to  the  world  to  come  in  the  case 
of  many  who  die  in  sin.” 

This  is  a  question  of  fact,  upon  which  the  Committee,  at  the 
proper  time,  wish  to  be  heard,  and  the  charge  is  one  which  the 
Committee  proposes  to  support  with  proper  evidence.  If  Pro¬ 
fessor  Briggs  now  disclaims  this  doctrine  it  will  be  perfectly 
possible  for  him  to  bring  forward  evidence,  at  the  proper  time, 
in  his  defense,  and  the  proper  time  is  when  the  case  is  heard  on 
the  merits. 

Professor  Briggs’  preliminary  objections  against  the  Seventh 
Charge  are  irrelevant  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  The  answer  “yes”  which  was  made  by  Professor  Briggs 
to  the  question  submitted  by  the  Directors  of  Union  Seminary, 


“Do  you  believe  that  the  issues  of  this  life  are  final,  and  that 
a  man  who  dies  impenitent  will  have  no  further  opportunity 
of  salvation?”  was  made  by  Professor  Briggs  prior  to  the 
publication  of  documentary  evidence  as  to  his  teaching,  which 
the  prosecution  proposes  to  bring  forward. 

Since  these  questions  were  put  by  the  Seminary  Directors 
and  answered  by  Professor  Briggs,  the  statement  in  the 
Inaugural  Address  upon  which  Charge  VII.  is  based  has  been 
republished  with  an  Appendix.  Any  disclaimer  of  the  doctrine 
asserted  in  Charge  VII.  is  irrelevant  at  this  stage  of  the  trial, 
unless  Professor  Briggs  is  prepared  to  retract  or  withdraw  the 
statements  which  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  will  offer  in 
evidence  in  support  of  the  charge. 

2.  The  dilemma  presented  by  Professor  Briggs  is  invalid,  the 
disjunction  is  incomplete. 

Without  calling  in  question  his  veracity  on  the  one  hand,  or 
presenting  proof  that  their  interpretation  of  his  doctrine  is  true, 
the  Committee  has  a  perfect  right  to  show,  in  the  trial  of  the 
case  on  its  merits,  that,  subsequent  to  the  answer  given  to  the 
questions  of  the  Seminary  Directors,  the  doctrine  stated  in 
Charge  VII.  has  been  taught  and  re-affirmed  and  is  now  held  by 
Professor  Briggs,  unless  the  specified  words  in  the  Inaugural, 
upon  which  Charge  VII.  is  based,  are  openly  retracted  or  with¬ 
drawn.  The  charge  is  based  upon  Professor  Briggs’  own  words, 
and  they  must  stand  as  true,  until  they  have  been  withdrawn,  or 
until  this  Judicatory  determines  that  their  evident  meaning  does 
not  import  the  doctrinal  unsoundness  charged.  His  having 
taught  the  doctrine  we  propose  to  prove;  whether  he  now  holds 
it  or  not  is  for  him  to  demonstrate  on  the  trial  of  the  case  on  the 
■  merits.  It  is  for  the  Judicatory  to  determine  whether  the  charge 
has  been  or  has  not  been  sustained,  and  the  Committee  is  pre¬ 
pared  to  show  that  it  can  be  sustained. 

The  dilemma  stated  by  Professor  Briggs  ignores  altogether 
a  third  alternative.  Therefore,  without  impeaching  the  Profes¬ 
sor’s  veracity,  and  without  placing  its  own  interpretation  upon 
his  words,  the  Committee  may  show,  by  evidence  and  by  argu¬ 
ment,  what  doctrine  as  to  redemption  is  found  in  Professor 


7 


Briggs  Inaugural.  If  the  evidence  is  incomplete,  or  if  evidence 
to  the  contrary  be  presented  in  the  trial  on  the  merits,  then  the 
Judicatory  may,  by  vote,  sustain  the  charge  or  not,  as  in  its 
wisdom  it  may  then  determine,  but  there  is  no  place  for  such  an 
action  in  the  preliminary  proceedings. 

^  3-  It  has  been  urged  that  the  Seventh  of  the  Amended 
Charges  is  a  new  charge.  The  original  second  charge,  charged 
Professor  Briggs  with  teaching  a  certain  doctrine  as  to  the  state 
of  the  dead.  The  Prosecuting  Committee  was  and  is  prepared 
to  prove  what  this  doctrine  is.  The  separation  of  the  original 
second  charge  into  two  of  the  Amended  Charges,  is  in  the 
interest  of  clearness,  conciseness,  of  justice  and  of  Professor 
Briggs.  He  regards  redemption  as  a  general  term  including 
all  the  processes  of  grace.  It  is  possible  that  one  part  of  the 
processes  of  redemption  may  be  limited  to  this  world,  and 
another  be  carried  on  in  the  world  to  come.  On  this  account 
the  original  Charge  II.  has  been  subdivided  into  the  Amended 
Charges  VII.  and  VIII. 

Amended  Charge  Number  VII.  charges  the  teaching  of  doc¬ 
trine  with  respect  to  some  of  the  processes  of  redemption  after 
death. 

Number  VIII.  charges  the  teaching  of  doctrine  with  respect 
to  other  processes  of  redemption  after  death. 

The  two  charges  ought  not,  in  fact,  to  be  separated.  The 
Committee  will  show  that  they  cannot  be  logically  separated, 
but  in  order  to  make  the  charges  specific,  and  to  limit  this 
charge  to  a  single  offense,  the  separation  has  been  made,  and 
this  has  been  done  in  the  interest  of  justice.  The  two  charges 
were  both  necessarily  implied  in  the  II.  or  last  of  the  original 
charges.  The  two  were  separated  in  the  amended  charges  so 
as  to  secure  a  concise  and  definite  statement,  so  as  to  make  the 
issue  clear  and  distinct,  and  so  that  the  accused  might  not  be 
left  in  the  dark  as  to  the  points  of  doctrine  upon  which,  it  is 
charged,  he  holds,  and  teaches  views  contrary  to  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Standards. 

CHARGE  IV. 

With  respect  to  Amended  Charge  IV.,  it  must  be  said  that 


8 


the  denial  of  predictive  prophecy,  and  the  denial  of  the  fulfill¬ 
ment  of  Messianic  prediction,  which  is  a  branch  of  predictive 
prophecy,  is  an  offense  only  because  of  the  relation  of  prophecy 
to  the  attributes  of  God.  In  this  respect  Charge  IV.  stands  on 
grounds  similar  to  those  of  the  charges  relating  to  the  truthful¬ 
ness  of  Scripture. 

Predictive  prophecy,  in  the  Bible,  of  which  Messianic  pre¬ 
diction  is  a  part,  is  true,  and  will  be  fulfilled,  if  the  Scriptures 
themselves  are  true.  Instead  of  including  Messianic  prediction 
in  one  of  the  other  charges,  it  is  made  the  subject  of  a  distinct 
charge.  But  why  does  the  denial  of  the  fulfillment  of  Messianic 
prediction  constitute  an  offense?  Evidently  not  on  account  of  the 
respect  in  which  the  Prophet  is  held,  nor  on  account  of  the 
respect  in  which  the  Scripture  per  se  is  held,  for  Scripture  is 
held  in  reverence,  because  it  is  the  word  of  God.  Hence  the  only 
ground  upon  which  the  denial  of  the  fulfillment  of  Messianic 
prediction  can  be  regarded  as  an  offense,  is  because  it  is  a 
denial  of  the  truthfulness,  omniscience  and  unchangeableness  of 

God. 

Professor  Briggs,  in  his  Response,  has  disclaimed  the  denial  of 
the  fulfillment  of  the  details  of  predictive  prophecy,  but  there  are 
his  words  in  his  Inaugural  which  he  has  not  retracted.  Why 
should  he  be  so  careful  to  disclaim  the  doctrine  that  Messianic 
prediction  has  not  always  been  fulfilled,  were  it  not  that  such  a 
doctrine  constitutes  an  offense,  and  why  does  it  constitute  an 
offense?  It  is  because  Messianic  prediction,  as  referred  to  in 
Charge  IV.,  is  inspired  prediction,  and  if  it  is  inspired  predic¬ 
tion,  it  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  if  the  Word  of  God  is  not  true, 
is  not  unchangeable,  then  the  attributes  of  God  are  assailed. 
The  Committee  of  Prosecution  is  prepared  to  prove  this,  as  it 
was  prepared  to  prove  the  original  charge. 

That  the  charge  concerning  Messianic  prediction  has  been 
separated  from  the  charge  respecting  Scripture,  is  in  the  in¬ 
terests  of  justice,  for  Messianic  prediction,  if  inspired  by  God, 
must  be  fulfilled,  or  there  is  reflection  upon  the  attributes  of 
God.  This  the  Committee  proposes  to  prove. 

One  of  Professor  Briggs’  objections  to  Charge  IV.  is  that  it  is 

a  new  charge. 


9 


Specification  VII.  of  the  original  first  charge  was  as  follows: 
“  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  that  predictive  prophecy  has  been  reversed 
by  history,  and  that  much  of  it  has  not  and  never  can  be  ful¬ 
filled.”  The  amended  Charge  IV.  charges  Professor  Briggs 
with  teaching  “that  many  of  the  Old  Testament  predictions 
have  been  reversed  by  history,  and  that  the  great  body  of 
Messianic  prediction  has  not  been  and  cannot  be  fulfilled,  which 
is  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the 
Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that  God  is  true,  omniscient  and 
unchangeable.”  It  cannot  be  denied  that  Messianic  prediction  is 
a  part  of  predictive  prophecy,  or  that  it  is  not  of  the  same  gen¬ 
eral  nature  as  the  original  charge.  In  the  interest  of  clearness 
and  conciseness,  and  to  make  the  issue  to  be  met  by  Professor 
Briggs  more  simple,  the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  following 
the  suggestion  in  his  original  response,  dropped  the  use  of  the 
more  general  term  c  ‘  predictive  prophecy,  ”  quoted,  with  approval, 
in  his  Inaugural  Address  by  Professor  Briggs,  from  Kuenen,  and 
confined  the  charge  to  the  more  restricted  and  exact  point  of  his 
teaching,  and  to  his  own  words,  “  that  the  great  body  of  the 
Messianic  prediction  has  not  been  and  cannot  be  fulfilled.” 

Professor  Briggs’  statement,  “if  we  insist  upon  the  fulfillment 
of  the  details  of  predictive  prophecy,”  &c.,  is  conditional,  but 
his  statement  embodied  in  Charge  IV.  with  respect  to  Mes¬ 
sianic  prediction,  is  made  unconditionally,  and  not  as  a  quotation 
from  Kuenen,  but  is  given  as  his  own  words,  and  as  expressing 
his  own  views.  Professor  Briggs  says,  in  the  Inaugural  Ad- 
ress  (p.  38),  that  “the  great  body  of  the  Messianic  prediction 
has  not  only  never  been  fulfilled,  but  cannot  now  be  fulfilled,  for 
the  reason  that  its  own  time  has  passed  forever.”  It  is  upon  this 
definite,  clear  and  distinct  statement  of  Professor  Briggs’  doc¬ 
trine  of  Messianic  prediction  that  Charge  IV.  is  based. 

That  the  Committee  have  not  been  mistaken  in  their  reading 
and  understanding  of  this  clause  of  the  Inaugural  is  strongly 
evidenced  by  the  position  stated  by  Dr.  Edward  D.  Morris,  in 
his  “Calm  Review  of  the  Inaugural  Address,”  page  31,  where 
he  says: 

“  Respecting  prophecy,  Dr.  Briggs  denies  that  it  constitutes 
in  any  direct  sense  a  history  before  the  time;  he  quotes  Kuenen 


10 


with  approval  as  having  shown  that  many  Old  Testament 
prophecies,  instead  of  having  come  to  pass,  have  actually  been 
reversed  by  history;  he  affirms  for  himself  that  the  great  body 
of  Messianic  prediction  not  only  never  had  been,  but  cannot  now 

or  at  any  time  in  the  future  be  fulfilled. 

Professor  Briggs  argues  that  Amended  Charge  IV.  is  a  new 
charge,  because  of  the  character  of  proof  proposed  to  support 
it.  He  says  in  his  objection  filed  to  amended  Charge  IV.  .  In 
stead  of  citations  from  the  first  chapter  of  the  Confession,  they 
give  citations  from  the  second  chapter  of  the  Confession  and 
the  fourth  question  of  the  Shorter  Catechism  in  proof  of  their 
position,  thus  showing  by  their  use  of  evidence  that  they  have  a 
new  charge  to  sustain.” 

As  Professor  Briggs  has  charged  the  Committee  with  being 
fickle,  in  that  it  has  substituted  his  own  words,  in  this  Charge, 
for  other  words  quoted  by  him  from  another,  with  his  approval, 
it  is  important  that  we  should  test  the  accuracy  of  his  second 
argument  against  the  validity  of  the  amended  Charge  IV. 

If  the  members  of  the  Judicatory  will  keep  open  before  them 
pages  19  to  22  of  the  amended  charges,  and  pages  36  to  4°  of 
the  original  charges,  they  cannot  fail  to  observe  how  inaccurate, 
to  say  the  least  of  it,  this  claim  of  Professor  Briggs  is.  He  says 
that  “instead  of  citations  from  the  first  chapter  of  the  Confes¬ 
sion,  they  give  citations  from  the  second  chapter  of  the  Confes¬ 
sion.”  By  referring  to  the  prints  you  will  notice  that  in  both 
cases  Section  4  of  Chapter  I.  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  given 
in  proof,  and  quotations  from  Chapter  II.  are  added.  You  will 
also  notice  that  in  support  of  the  original  Specification  VII., 
and  of  the  Amended  Charge  IV.,  the  same  question  and  answer 
from  the  Shorter  Catechism  is  given,  and  that  is  the  question  : 
“What  is  God?”  And  the  answer,  of  course,  gives  the  attri¬ 
bute  of  God,  which  the  Committee  claimed  was  involved  under 
the  original  Specification  VII.,  and  is  involved  under  the 
Amended  Charge  IV. 

It  is  true  that  the  Committee  dropped  the  citation  of  certain 
texts  of  Scripture  under  the  Amended  Charge  IV.,  simply  for 
the  reason  that  the  amended  charge  restricted  the  area  of  discus¬ 
sion  to  a  more  definite  and  distinct  point,  viz.  :  to  Messianic 


11 


prediction,  and  consequently,  to  avoid  surplusage  of  proof,  cer¬ 
tain  Scripture  texts  were  omitted. 

The  Committee,  after  most  careful  deliberation,  conclude : 

ist.  That  Amended  Charges  IV.  and  VII.  are  not  in  any 
sense  new,  and  that  they  are  strictly  in  accord  with  the  rules 
relating  to  the  amendment  of  charges  and  specifications  as  set 
out  in  Section  22  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  and  in  the  mandate  of 
the  General  Assembly  in  this  case,  in  that  they  strictly  conform 
to  the  general  nature  of  the  original  charges  and  specifications. 

2d.  That  they  cannot  see  their  way,  consistently  with  the 
duty  devolved  upon  them  as  representing  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  this  matter,  to  with¬ 
draw  said  charges. 


